What to call this thread?

On biological sex: Open Ocean Exploration @RebeccaRHelm

Rebecca is a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville USA.

'Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...

...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.

What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?

Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.'

Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.

Biology is a shitshow

453983614_826346439708611_5592305344814161498_n.jpg
 
Shiftless2 said:
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? #401
Click to expand...
Fine. BUT !!
That's only part of the story.

I'm not smooth enough to qualify as a charm-school drop-out. Even so, I'm marginally competent to correctly select the form of address during daily human interaction: "sir", or "m'am". BUT !
That's only with the standard binary model.

You're within easy reach of the finish line here S2.
What is the appropriate form of address when interacting with non-binaries?
 
Shiftless2 said:
Ask them. I'm sure most will prefer you do that than use the wrong term.
Click to expand...
Problem is, even to ask them may either present the need of a title, or if omitted, omitted conspicuously.

I suppose we could try "citizen", or "countrymen". But even these subject to error if the individual is from a monarchy, or not a citizen of the U.S.

Still, we're making progress. We'll iron out the details along the way. In my lifetime the singular "they" has entered common use. One step at a time.
 

GOP lawmakers laud Supreme Court’s rejection of DOJ’s Title IX request​

by Yash Roy - 08/17/24 9:06 AM ET

Republican lawmakers are celebrating after the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Friday, denied the Biden administration’s emergency request to partially reinstate its new Title IX rules, which, if implemented, would protect against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

“Unlike Democrats, Republicans know what a woman is, and we know Title IX was written to ...

CONTINUED
 
:confused:

It'd be nice to believe Brown v. Board ended "separate but equal".
The expert opinion I've read on it indicate Title IX precipitated a profusion of excellence apparently suppressed for centuries, until Title IX.

It seems the GOP has found a way to circumvent this progress.

Vote Republican ! Then, live in a cave !
 
If you didn't know, Clarence Thomas has already taken a shot across the bow of Brown v Board - it's one of the Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with (the fact that he personally would have benefited from it doesn't matter)
 
Shiftless2 said:
If you didn't know, Clarence Thomas has already taken a shot across the bow of Brown v Board - it's one of the Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with (the fact that he personally would have benefited from it doesn't matter)
Click to expand...
This may belong squarely in the TMI category, if so I apologize.
However profoundly I may disagree ideologically with Thomas & ilk I might at least have been able to respect it he them if not for their hypocrisy.
But masquerading their political / judicial agenda as conservatism is not merely treachery, but insult. iirc several if not most Republican SCOTUS appointees are perjurers.
That they remain on the court at all is an affront to integrity, to justice, to civilization.
 
In remarks this week, International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach claimed that there’s no “scientific” system to differentiate between males and females.

“We have said from the very beginning, if somebody is presenting us a scientifically solid system, how to identify men and women, we are the first ones to do it. We do not like this uncertainty. We do not like it for the overall situation for nobody. So, we would be more than pleased to look into it, but what is not possible is somebody saying ‘this is not a woman’ just by looking at somebody,” Bach said in remarks when asked if the IOC would review its transgender athlete guidelines.
townhall.com

IOC President: There’s No ‘Scientific’ System to Identify Men and Women

townhall.com townhall.com

Are we victims of our own prejudice here?
The perspective here is, the way this issue is presented to us:

We don't have an objective scientific standard to categorize all the athletes. Fine.

Is that a problem of scientific categorization technology?
Or is it fault resulting from the obvious false premise that there are only two genders?
 
Re #409 - seems a large part of "protecting women" is really protecting a particular image of women.

But the idea of sex testing female athletes dates back a number of years - seems some female athlete went to use the washroom in the Olympic village and found the toilet seat up. So the early tests were simply "drop your pants".

This dates from 2016

How the practice of sex-testing targets female Olympic athletes​

The IOC’s pursuit of competitive fairness through testosterone, genitalia and sex testing is all wrong.

Click to expand...

The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes​

www.nytimes.com

The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes (Published 2016)

For years, international sports organizations have been policing women for “masculine” qualities — and turning their Olympic dreams into nightmares. But when Dutee Chand appealed her ban, she may have changed the rules.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Re #409 - seems a large part of "protecting women" is really protecting a particular image of women." S2 #410
Click to expand...
And thus may be a red herring?
I don't know the rationale.
I'm not sure stating the obvious is necessary. A man competing against a woman is hardly unfair in some matters not determining outcome based on upper-body strength, Trump vs Harris for obvious current example.

But Olympic competition is less about intellect, and more about physical superiority. Thus it would seem the practical reason to segregate Olympic competition by sex.
Even if succeeding at this segregation is extraneous in some cases, it compliments deliberate effort to exclude impropriety, with diminishing the appearance of impropriety.

This can be reduced to a binary. Either we succeed at it, or not.
Which is better? Making the deliberate effort? Or not?

And what would result if we didn't make this distinction? Would women not then be more marginalized in these competitions?
Is it not better to welcome them, by providing women a level playing field?
Shiftless2 said:
But the idea of sex testing female athletes dates back a number of years - seems some female athlete went to use the washroom in the Olympic village and found the toilet seat up. So the early tests were simply "drop your pants".
Click to expand...
- ha - time for a childish snicker
 
Nothing has changed - the only difference is that instead of black athletes it's now trans athletes (the only thing of note is that in the years since trans athletes have been allowed to compete "they" haven't taken over the podium)

After the success of a number of Black women in athletics events in 1948, according to “Coming on strong: gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport” by Susan K. Cahn p 111

…Olympic governing bodies of the 1950s once again considered eliminating several women’s track-and-field events because the competitors were “not truly feminine”.
In the discussions that followed, Olympic Official Norman Cox sarcastically proposed that rather than ban women’s events, the IOC should create a special category for the unfairly-advantaged “hermaphrodites”, who regularly defeated “normal” women, those less-skilled “child-bearing” types with “largish breasts, wide hips [and] knocked-knees.”

This wasn't based on chromosomes, or hormone levels, it was based on Race. He was talking about Black women. It was based on them not appearing feminine enough by the white standards of the time. Competitors were complaining.
Click to expand...
 
Shiftless2 said:
#412
Click to expand...

1724269556061.jpeg
Bigotry has surely been around a while.
Shiftless2 said:
Nothing has changed - the only difference is that instead of black athletes it's now trans athletes (the only thing of note is that in the years since trans athletes have been allowed to compete "they" haven't taken over the podium)
Click to expand...

My reason for skepticism here:
It's not clear to me that dark skin is a significant performance enhancer, potentially the opposite *.

If hormones aren't, then Lance Armstrong has persuaded me placebos are enormously powerful medication.

> > >

My intended message may not be without subtlety.
I'd be astounded if this category of athlete, among others, isn't discriminated against for one reason or another, or perhaps no reason at all.

My suspicion is, though it is both recognized and acknowledged that the science to quantify this among individual competitors is inadequate
there's some semblance of plausibility to segregating the sexes in such competitions as weight-lifting.

I'm all for fairness for non-binaries. BUT !!
I'm not yet convinced we impart fairness to non-binaries by
imparting unfairness to binaries.

Seems to me the challenge is to:
a) impart fairness to all, &
b) impart the appearance of fairness to all.

Easier said than done. Thus: Current Events: What to call this thread?

* Olympic athletic exertion outdoors on hot Summer day may cause the dark-skinned competitor to expel excess body heat more slowly than light-skinned competition.
There's compensatory benefit, increased melanin helping to shield from cancer-causing solar radiation.
In this exact scenario that may mean dark skin in outdoor Summer athletic events experience short-term pain for long-term gain, & light-skinned competitors, the reverse. [ref: the Vit-D problem]
 
It's not a question of "segregating" the sexes. It's a question of defining them.

And then there's the question of which "genetic advantages" we penalize people for (note that it's always women who are penalized - and not white women at that)
 

‘It’s about an 11-year-old girl who loves tennis’: Judge rules transgender student can play on girls team amid lawsuit in Hanover​

by: Sierra Krug

A federal judge has granted an injunction to a transgender middle schooler in Hanover County which will allow her to play on the school’s tennis team while a lawsuit filed over her being banned from the team continues.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia sued the Hanover County School Board in July over their decision to ban the 11-year-old student, referred to as “Janie Doe” in court documents, from participating in her school’s girls’ tennis team last year.

“The heart of the matter is… it’s about an 11-year-old girl who loves tennis and wants to play with her friends,” said ACLU of Virginia’s Senior Trans Rights Attorney, Wyatt Rolla. “Virginians should all want public schools that are safe and inclusive places for all of our children.”

The case appeared before a federal judge last week for the first time. The judge released comments last Friday.

“The court entered that order because it found that it was likely that Hanover County School Board, by excluding Janie from the girls’ tennis team, had violated both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Rolla said.

The judge’s ruling will allow Janie Doe to participate in upcoming try-outs because school athletics can’t just be paused to wait until the case is over.


“No one really disagrees, factually, [with] what happened here,” Rolla said. “It’s a question of how the law should be applied to those facts.”

According to Rolla, Judge Hannah Lauck said that, if the Hanover County School Board continued to ban Janie from participating in athletics, she would face a “litany of harms.” Rolla read off a what the judge suggested those harms would entail.

“Ranging from ...

 
Shiftless2 said:
Not really - what sport penalizes male athletes for "unfair" genetic advantages?
Click to expand...
Looks like women are superior to men at "Snatch". Go figure.
Other than that, it seems men have the advantage in weight-lifting.
Makes sense to me. We're bigger. So as a % body-weight, wouldn't the larger be expected to tend to be stronger?

Men’s Weight Classes​

  • 55-kilograms — Snatch
  • 89-kilograms — Snatch, Clean & Jerk, Total
  • 102-kilograms — Snatch, Clean & Jerk, Total

Women’s Weight Classes​

  • 45-kilograms — Snatch, Clean & Jerk, Total
  • 71-kilograms — Snatch
  • 87-kilograms — Snatch, Clean & Jerk, Total
barbend.com

Every Current Olympic Weightlifting World Record (Infographic)

Every Olympic weightlifting world record in the snatch, clean & jerk, and total, who lifted them, and the countries they represent in one infographic.
barbend.com barbend.com

I suspect other upper-body strength sport like shot-put probably imparts advantage to men.

Cards on table here S2,
in my human generations (decades!) of peripheral involvement with civil rights, I've become persuaded that what authority is obliged to do
is NOT provide equality of outcome, but instead to provide equality of opportunity.
Without any definitive, authoritative document to quote on the subject, I imagine that's why men's sport & women's sport are segregated.

Psychologist Joy Browne PhD (a woman don't you know) quipped that the reason competition is gender segregated is to give the men a chance to win something.
As you might imagine with an attitude like her's, she also said, Fred Astaire is a pretty good dancer. BUT !!
Ginger Rogers matched him step for step, backwards, and in high heels. Love you Joy.
 
That's not what I mean. What sport says something like "Your body produces less than half the lactic acid a normal persons does so you can't compete"? [Note that if swimming did that Michael Phelps would have been banned a long time ago.]

And while they check women's testosterone levels they don't check men's - all they're concerned about is that men's T-levels didn't come out of a bottle.

That's my point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top